Get Out While You Still Can: Erik Gudbranson and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

Coming into this season, there was a whole lot of discussion about Erik Gudbranson. The pending unrestricted free agent was awarded a one-year $3.5 million extension in the summer after missing the majority of his first season with the Vancouver Canucks.

Gudbranson has been a polarizing player throughout his young career, with some lauding his physical, stay-at-home style, and others criticizing his horrendous possession numbers. The conflict between these two camps seems to be coming to a head as time ticks away on his one-year pact with the team, bringing on serious questions about what to do with the 6-foot-5 Ottawa native going forward.

On their TSN 1040 AM radio show on Friday, Mike Halford and Jason Brough broached this topic. Rightly, they pointed out that, as a pending free agent on a single year term, the Canucks will be able to re-sign him come January 1st. They then went on to state that the Canucks had but two choices: trade Gudbranson at the deadline, or re-sign him; they simply cannot lose him for nothing in free agency.

I’m here to tell you not only that the Canucks can lose him for nothing, but that’s it’s actually the second best option of the lot. What we’re looking at here is the Sunk Cost Fallacy. But before we get to that, let’s see how we got to where we are.

Acquisition

Gudbranson was Jim Benning’s big acquisition in the 2016 offseason, shipping former first-round pick Jared McCann to Florida in return, as well as swapping a few drafts picks which saw Vancouver lose significant potential draft value.

Losing McCann has been enough of a blow. The forward had five points in his first eight games with Florida so far this season and was beginning to push his way up the lineup before a lower-body injury forced him out of a handful of games. Those draft picks, though, and especially the second rounder, could really sting.

The term “second-round pick” hardly does it justice – it was, in fact, a 33rd overall selection, just barely outside the first round, where there is still a wealth of potentially impressive players. The Canucks drafted Kole Lind at 33 in 2017, and fans are rightly excited about his terrific start to the season. At the 2016 draft though, 33rd ended up being Rasmus Asplund, a Swedish centre who’s off to a fine start in the Swedish Hockey League with nine points in 17 games (only Elias Pettersson is having a better start to the season among under-20 players in that league). A couple of players selected shortly after that pick, such as Alex DeBrincat (Chicago) and Sam Girard (Nashville, since traded to Colorado), are already playing in the NHL and producing.

Fans around here are savvy, and popular opinion for a significant portion of the Vancouver fanbase was that the Panthers thoroughly fleeced Canucks general manager Jim Benning. Others were willing to delay judgement until seeing how Gudbranson played in Vancouver. Well, we’ve now seen Gudbranson play in Vancouver, and the results were have not been very appealing.

Results

In 179 minutes at 5-on-5 this season, Gudbranson has been one of the NHL’s worst defencemen. His shot shares are far and away the worst on the Canucks (aside from some very uncharacteristic, small sample Alexander Edler numbers), and the only other players that are even close are the ones that Gudbranson has spent significant time with this season. His shot attempt differential of minus-53 is more than double the next closest Canuck (Derek Dorsett, minus-24), and his CD60 of -11.5 means that the Canucks are allowing 11 and a half more shot attempts against than for, for every hour that Gudbranson is wandering the ice.

His five-on-five numbers are ghastly enough: only 23 defencemen with at least 100 5v5 minutes have a worse Corsi-for percentage right now. But that’s just the half of it. The Canucks have put up decent possession numbers this season, and are even top ten in the league in adjusted CF% and xGF% as a team. That really puts a dent in Gudbranson’s team and teammate-relative numbers, putting him near the absolute bottom of the league.

Player

CF%

FF%

SF%

GF%

xGF%

5v5

44.10

43.99

43.58

48.70

42.44

5v5 Rel

-11.33

-10.67

-10.32

-12.64

-13.95

5v5 RealTm

-11.12

-10.79

-11.71

-12.64

-14.70

Source: Corsica.hockey

His -11.3% relative CF%, for instance, is the second worst among all defencemen with at least 100 minutes at five-on-five. His relative Fenwick ratio is seventh worst, and his relative Expected Goals ratio is eighth worst. In each case, the culprit is his complete inability to suppress shots. The Canucks allow 15.6 more shot attempts every hour that he is on the ice, relative to when he is on the bench, as well as nearly half an Expected Goal. Again, that’s the relative difference every hour.

Worse yet is that he’s managed all of this in relatively sheltered minutes, lining up for roughly as many faceoffs in the offensive zone as the defensive zone, and ranking fifth on the Canucks regarding the average minutes played by opposing forwards (an approximation of quality of competition). He’s been a significant drag on whichever poor defenceman draws the short straw and has to babysit him on the ice, as evidenced by the following table, showing all d-men that he’s spent at least ten minutes with at five-on-five.

The analytics look terrible on Gudbranson, but he hasn’t looked any better to the naked eye. While some hoped that mid-season surgery to an injured wrist would improve some of his underlying numbers from last year, that hasn’t been close to the case. It makes sense: wrist surgery was never going to fix questionable decision making, poor reads, awkward pivots and transitions, and a noticeable lack of foot speed.

Any direction that you look at it, Gulbranson’s results have been brutal, which is pretty much in tune with what he’s accomplished in his career to date. Now, let’s double back and explore the idea of sunk costs, and how Gudbranson fits the bill.

Sunk Costs

The mere fact that the Canucks cannot recoup what they paid for Erik Gudbranson does not mean that they are forced to keep him.

Professional sports, particularly one as divided from educational avenues as hockey, tend to struggle with critical thinking, and in turn, lend themselves to a host of logical fallacies. Appeal to authority is a particularly common example. In the case of Gudbranson, the Sunk Cost Fallacy is most relevant.

A sunk cost is something that has already been paid for, and the payment for which cannot be recuperated. Having already invested something of value into this object, the emotional mind will go to great lengths to avoid feeling like the investment was wasted — even if that means sinking more capital into that investment.

The fallacious part of it is the lack of awareness that while you think you are simply trying to break even, you are really only making the problem worse.

Gudbranson is a sunk cost. Convincing yourself that you need to hold on to him just because you paid a hefty price for him does not help the situations — it just digs you deeper and deeper into a hole.

What this means

Obviously, I don’t want the Canucks just to lose an asset for nothing. We often talk about asset management, and with good reason. But asset management is still the point here; sometimes walking away is better asset management than doubling down.

For many, like Botchford, Halford, and Brough, the order of preference goes like this:

Trade > re-sign > walk away

I see the logic behind this preference, simply because walking away from an asset that you paid a hefty price to acquire is seen as a deadly sin.

My order of preference is similar, with an important distinction:

Trade > walk away > re-sign

As with most people, my first choice would be to get something for Gudbranson. If there are teams out there that still value what he brings to the table, and we know that there are, by all means, the Canucks should exploit that. The difference for me is that walking away isn’t my worst case scenario; re-signing Gudbranson is.

Part of this requires some context. I’m not necessarily saying that Gudbranson isn’t an NHL player; I just don’t believe he’s a top-four defenceman, and I think he’s drifting dangerously close to replacement level. He’s not worth $3.5 million a season, and he certainly won’t be worth the big, long contract he’ll inevitably get as a pending unrestricted free agent next summer. There’s an amount that I’d be willing to pay Gudbranson to play on the bottom pair, with no guarantee of a spot in the lineup each night. But it would be close to the league minimum – definitely not an amount that he or his camp would accept, which makes going down that avenue pointless.

Trade Expectations

I’ll make one more distinction from popular opinion, and that is to lower your expectations of a return. They aren’t getting McCann back. They aren’t recouping the value they lost in the pick swaps. The deal they made last summer is, and always will be, a loss. Canucks management can’t go into future trade negotiations with the mentality that they need to recover that lost value.

When the next option in line if a trade doesn’t occur is letting him go for nothing, you need to be willing to take whatever you can get for the asset. Even if you go into negotiations with higher expectations, they should be lowered accordingly as the search for a deal proceeds.

And, again, if a deal cannot be reached, then it’s time to cut bait and walk away. Signing this player for the salary that is going to command, and for any length of term, will absolutely come back to bite the Canucks, and should be avoided at all costs.

The $14 million that will be freed up as the Sedins come off the books after this season will look like a lot to start with, but healthy raises for the likes of Sven Baertschi, Brock Boeser, and Troy Stecher will be in the offing in the next two off-seasons, and any term longer than that could start to impede the first non-ELC contracts of players like Elias Pettersson, Jonathan Dahlen, Adam Gaudette, and Olli Juolevi, should they command any serious sum of money (and the hope is obviously that they will).

Having three of four million dollars tied up in a replacement level defender is never going to be a good look. Merely not having him on the roster at that salary next season is the very definition of addition by subtraction, both in terms of the salary cap structure, and the team’s ability to control the flow of play on the ice-ice.

So, as we approach the January re-sign window, and then the trade deadline, keep these things in mind. Getting something in return is still a priority, but if that isn’t feasible, they do not have to re-sign Erik Gudbranson, and they shouldn’t do it either.

If Gudbranson is on the Canucks’ roster next September, it means in all likelihood that a mistake has been made, and they could suffer from it for years to come. The only safe solution is to get out while they still can, be that on or before February 26th at the trade deadline, or on June 30th when the current contract expires.

Draft pedigree, bigness, and phrases like “hard to play against” that can be easily disproven. How hard can he be to play against if he allows shots on goal at a rate higher than almost every other defenceman in the league?

Follow-on question: If that’s the case, why should I lower my expectations for a return on a trade? Surely if he’s going to command that much money as a FA there should be a decent trade market for the guy.

Hockey isn’t played on pieces of paper by staticians.
Botchford, Halford, and Brough are not the the three wise men of hockey.
Trotting out negative articles repeatedly when so many storylines are positive is very telling.

Jeremy covering JD is almost as good as General Kelly covering Trump. At least Jeremy didn’t call Gudbrandson an empty barrel. That said, good quantitative analysis. For me, the eye test, and team’s current standings (and overall play) indicates otherwise. Plus did you see him dummy Wilson? And yes, he got suspended for it, but skilled players going for that extra little behind the net better not get too fancy.

I hand-track certain aspects of games, which is extremely difficult if you don’t watch. If you think Gudbranson looks good, I have no idea how you’re seeing that. The eye test is as bad as the stats, as mentioned in the article.

Respectfully suggest that there may be some confirmation bias on your part when watching him play. Meaning that you (and the rest of CA) are virulently anti-Gudbranson and are going to see that when you watch him.

Agree to disagree Jeremy.
As dozens of posters here are pointing out with more than frequent regularity – there are constant and sometimes staggering differences in what is written about the games and what the rest of us see.
I am not biased but I am a Canucks fan.
I believe the reverse is true for almost everyone that contributes articles here on CA.

“Looks good” – this means he makes a couple big hits a game. When he connects it does look really good! He’s massive, strong etc. A few plays like this have a way of standing out for anybody watching the game is a ‘normal’ fashion. Problem is what is he doing for the other 95% of the game which I assume you’re watching just as intently? Enlighten us, Locust.

agree to disagree – you sound like Ron Burgundy insisting “a whale’s vagina” is the correct translation of San Diego. This article is correct, yet I laughed when I saw the title because I knew how much bloo-bloo the comments section was going to be. I really do not understand how such a generally savvy website can have such bad commenting. The “eye test” is again, not a quantifiable thing. If you can’t quantify something, you can’t track it. It reminds me of the scouts in Moneyball complaining that a player has an ugly girlfriend.

Looking forward to Bud Poile popping up and yelling about how Gudbranson’s poor numbers are all Ben Hutton’s fault.

Of all the bad moves Benning has made since taking over as Canucks GM, the Gudbranson trade is probably the worst. Giving away a centre prospect with top-six upside and a top-40 draft pick for a guy who looked to be, *at best*, a second-pairing defenceman was a bad move on its face. Given that Gudbranson has been a replacement-level defenceman in his time with Vancouver, it was just a colossal misstep.

Analytics have obviously taken over as the primary evaluation method for players in today’s game, however, hockeys played by human beings, it’s not just a simulated algorithm. You cannot quantify every facet of the game! Stop trying to! There are more factors involved in the game of hockey than what you can record on a stats sheet. Any author who’s played the game should be able to realize that.

I didn’t know that the Canucks were getting outscored. You need to watch all the other D, when you single out one D for your ability assasination it is very easy to pick things you don’t like, but hockey is a team game. I don’t think your stats work very good for a hard hitting D that keeps the other team wary. To see how pure stats are working for player selection just look at where the coyotes and panthers are in the standings. That is the true test of where the rubber meets the road.

It literally isn’t. Edmonton’s outshot their opponent almost every single game by a large margin, almost twenty shots and is still thirtieth overall. The best corsi teams have missed the playoffs by fifteen to twenty points. Corsi is basically do well enough, outshoot your opponents significantly, and your guaranteed eighty points. You took a loose correlation with winning and shots taken and completely misapplied it. Every post indicates your complete lack of understanding for why there was the relationship to begin with.

I played hockey my entire life. You don’t need to quantify everything. He looks bad out there. Poor reads, questionable decisions, glass-and-out plays, routine turnovers, misplays on odd man rush defences, slow pivots, lack of foot speed. He’s big and strong. That’s about it. Other than that, his skills are about that of an replacement level NHL player.

Playing D is a world away from skating/floating up ice.
Here’s the Guddy stats I compiled five days ago when replying to an earlier CA hit piece:
#42 of all NHL d men-SH Hits
#81 of all NHL d-men SH Blocked Shots
#102 of all NHL d-men SH TOI
#37 of all NHL d-men in Hits-leads Canucks d-men
#28 of all NHL d-men Hits/GP-leads Canucks d-men
#79 of all NHL d-men BS per GP
#97 of all NHL d-men Shots per GP

“He’s big and strong. That’s about it.” Jeremy Davis

Jeremy,come playoffs when the whistles are put away and hockey becomes a battlefield games are won with men like Guddy.
That’s the bottom line.
Dorsett,Sutter and Gudbranson are warriors you win with.
These men will never be “replacement level” players.

I know what the conventional wisdom is, but all objective data these days would indicate that 25 is indeed well into a defenceman’s prime. His underlying numbers are probably going to stay the same, and may be more likely to decrease than increase going forward.

Blah, blah, blah, stats and objective data my arse. Go find the flaw in all your stats that is the reason for professionals who actually manage these teams to find value in all your stats losers. Did your stats predict Dorsett’s value? Did they predict that the Sedins would continue to not get points despite their amazing possession stats this year?

The stupidest part of this column is that you would walk away before re-signing him, even though it’s been proven time and again that the worst contracts can be shed for some kind of return. I didn’t get to watch the Pittsburgh game, first one I’ve missed this year, but I heard many glowing reviews about Gudbranson’s game. Your response, amidst any number of positive stories with the team, is to again pile on Gudbranson. This site is becoming incredibly hard to stomach.

I’m not 100% sold on Gudbranson either way in the long term, but you tell me who’s going to replace his role in the lineup…..oh yeah, it’s all about possession, Corsi, Fenwick…….somebody should have told the guys who decided to analyze the game to try and incorporate stats that aren’t just about having the puck.

Gudbranson is the type of defenseman who eliminates his man from the play and allows his partner to get the puck and move it along. Does he have flaws in his game? Undoubtedly, but there is no metric you use which measures when he seals off a play along the boards, or conversely, when Stecher or Hutton get outmuscled and the play continues for the other team. That’s just the basic physical part of the game, but it bleeds over into the mental part as well. Guddy makes guys think about who’s coming, and helps make his less stout teammates more confident.

It’s a man’s game, and if Gudbranson had been on the ice when the Bruins were dummying Daniel Sedin, he would have answered the bell. That doesn’t mean I want Neanderthal hockey, it just means I want an answer when the other team tries it, and I’m not so blind as to think intimidation is not part of the game. I’ve seen it used too many times.

Guddy is also considered a strong leader by those who have played with him, I’m not privy to those dynamics but I’ll take their word for it. Florida seemed pretty bent out of shape that they lost him, and wouldn’t mind having him back.

It seems that for all your bluster about metrics, nobody ever answers this: How come there are playoff heroes every year who rise to the occasion and blow away their regular stats? Why was getting rid of Bonino so bad given his stats pretty much suck until the playoffs? Why isn’t Ovechkin afforded the same level of respect as Crosby? It’s because when all is said and done, nobody wins by bringing it on paper, it’s what happens on the ice, and you can’t measure heart and you can’t get caught short of soldiers when it’s time to go to war. He’s one of those, as was Alex Burrows, who’s pGPS would have most certainly had CA never sign him, never play him, and never see him realize his potential.

Meanwhile, Patrick Wiercoch, who I have nothing against, is supposed to be great value for teams every year as a paper princess, but nobody gives him a job in their top 6. Not even Florida or Arizona…….maybe there’s something to this whole professional hockey management that CA bloggers don’t quite understand.

“Prime” stretches anywhere from early 20’s to late 20’s. The drop off in production between 23 and 29 is insignificant compared to when players really start tailing off into their 30’s. Talking about the slight drop from the ages of 25 to 29 is very misleading.

You could both probably make a decent argument. Gudbranson should be “in his prime” right now, but he’s still at an age where he can improve.

Very logical and reasonable article. The analytics for Gudbranson only apply to regular season games though. In 2011, when the referees suddenly decided not to call anything – not even the attempted murder of Mason Raymond, a player like Gudbranson on the Canucks D would have been invaluable.
Benning came from the team that won that series. The league seems to have changed its playoff officiating since 2011, but who can know how they will call it should the Canucks ever return to the playoffs. It might be an idea to have a guy like Gudbranson around just in case.

The idea of “losing someone for nothing” is a fallacy itself. When a team loses a player to free agency, they reduce the salary they pay, which is obviously of value to them. Thus they do receive something in return.

Under certain circumstances, it can even make perfect sense to simply give a player to another team in the middle of a season without taking anything in return. Yes they lose a player, but they gain cap space, which they might value more. Or to put it another way, the team might be happy to just get out of the contract.

I have to agree with this one. NHL players are too stupid to be intimidated by other players. It’s why they waste so much time between whistles pushing and shoving….all of them too meathead to realize nobody cares.

Hi Jeremy, I normally really like your articles and I don’t doubt your stats, but here is where I have an issue. I’m an ex goalie and have noticed that in recent years defence seem to at most tie up the opponents stick in front of the net. Often they allow the players to stand in front of the net uncontested so as not to add another player screening the goalie. I have on multiple occasions this year watched Gudbranson remove the player from the front of the net. In Detroit, he moved a player from the front of the net to below the goal line as the defence man was winding up for a shot. As a goalie I have no problems facing lots of shots when I have a clear line of sight. For all his faults, Gudbranson removes players from danger areas and he’s the only Canuck I have seen do that in years. How does that get measured in the stats? I know it has value.

My second question is regarding the stats. My understanding is that the purpose of the stats is to predict future performance and success. If you have more possession you should score more, etc. You just told us what Malkin’s CF%, shot share and scoring share chances were against Gudbranson this year. What were the actual results. How many more goals did Malkin and his line score against Gudbranson than the Canucks score during that time against Pittsburg?

We can hope fancy stats can predict how things will go, but in the end the only thing that matters is the results. I don’t think Gudbranson is a top d man, but I agree with lots of the other posters that I didn’t see that poor of a performance by the eye test.

You measure it by digging deeper into the Corsi stats and looking at the quality of shots against. Heat maps are avaialable that show this kind of data but they were not included in the analysis. I’m guessing that not a lot of shots would show up close to the crease when Gudbranson was on the ice.

Okay, so he’s no Luca Sbisa. But ever since Groot went home, there has been a lack of size and toughness on the team.

As much as I like Stecher, his speed and skills, he’s not clearing anyone out of the crease in front of the net. He’s not going to battle Malkin all game and take cheap shots from 4th liners or push back against thugs like Ferland, Lucic etc.

Is Guddy worth what Benning paid? Nope. Is he going to want a big salary? Maybe.

Since ‘replacement ‘ players seem to be a dime a dozen I’d like Mr. Davis to give a few suggestions on who could replace Guddy, that has the same size, grit, better numbers and is available with ease and little value in a trade.

If you’re going to dump a ton of money on a guy who’s effectively UFA, why not try to get John Carlson? Carlson averages 30-40 points per year, blocks about 2/3 of the number of shots as Chris Tanev, can play 23-27 minutes per game, is usually in positive Corsi territory, shoots right, is 6’3″ and 216 lbs, and is only 27 years old.

“…has the same size, grit, better numbers and is available with ease and little value in a trade.”

Cody Franson. Same size, slightly older, doesn’t fight (but Gudbranson has only fought 3-4 times per season over the last few years), same hit rate (both were more prolific a few years ago, have tailed off in last 2-3 years), is $2.5M cheaper and a perennial late UFA signing. But Franson has better underlying metrics across the board.

the gudbranson debate deserves better than another hit piece by an author with an agenda. the guy has undoubted weaknesses and strengths. discussing only weaknesses is pathetic.

an 8 year old can see he is contributing value out there in spite of his rather obvious limitations. pretending that value doesn’t exist and shamelessly manipulating 12 games worth of stats to support the thesis is pathetic.

my prediction is that as this season goes on that folks like jeremy davis who overinvest in stats are going to go with the “i’m so happy i was wrong because i am a fan too” defence.

I would sign him at 3.5 per for 5 years. I don’t mind his play. He is no Sbisa. They have nobody else like him waiting to come in. Tryamkin is gone…sadly. I don’t find myself cursing his play like I do with Biega or did with Sbisa and Bieksa.

I miss the banner at the top showing the other nation websites (e.g. Flames Nation, Oilers Nation, etc.). Why don’t you write a Nation-wide article that asks non-CA commenters to (realistically) what they would pay for Erik Gudbranson (as of right now, pending UFA status). That would be a good litmus test as to how other fans perceive Gudbranson.

Yes and more yes. I personally think the team absolutely needs and Erik Gudbranson type player, I just think he’s going to cost too much for what he provides. Definitely curious about what fans of other teams think his value is.

The universal consensus is that Gudbranson’s having a pretty good year. He’s again responsible for a powerplay that’s eighth overall in the league, like in florida when it was first overall, and has soaked up difficult minutes against other team’s top lines. He’s a top four dman playing twenty minutes a night on a team that’s ranked third overall in goals against, again with the greatest defensive role. Gudbranson has huge value around the league. Similar to adam larsson. This is another instance of you having absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and why you don’t run a team. Essentially this article is, lets trade our second best defensive dman for a guy that’s been scratched multiple times this season and can’t get above thirty seconds on the penalty kill when he actually does play. Smart. This could work for a third and a fifth. They would need to send petrovic, a second and a third, plus a prospect for guddy.

Trying to lower his trade value/expectations with articles like this is a pretty bad idea. The Canucks could set up a trade where Gudbranson agrees to sign an extension, increasing his value quite a bit. The idea that he’s only worth a late round pick or petrovic is laughable. Larsson posts approximately the same numbers, has the same role, and perception. Larsson was traded for hall. There’s still a very large portion of the league that values Gudbranson, we could get a game changer for him. This could end up being a huge win for the Canucks. If florida still wants guddy, it wouldn’t be ridiculous to expect trochek plus picks back. You seem to miss his massive perceived value. I noticed as well that you guys primarily focus on corsi without any focus on high danger scoring chance suppression which is what coaches actually value, which “shockingly” is also where guddy’s successful. You can see by watching edmonton and the canadiens that it doesn’t really matter how many shots you get if they’re predictable and from the outside.

exactly this. Citing the Hall/Larsson deal is so far out of whack with what the Canucks could ever get for Guddy. This is the same GM who traded the 16th (Barzal) and 33rd pick for Griffen Reinhart. Hold on a sec…get Chiarelli on the phone!

I will agree with you on this point. Until D stops costing a fortune I won’t stop pointing out the fact that it does…

But with Guddy it’s pretty obvious his value is not considered “top 4”. He might return more than the haters think, but yeah…no way he gets anywhere close to a top forward. Maybe some 20 goal 2nd or 3rd line winger.

nonsense….wingers are virtually worthless. That’s just what D costs. Sakic couldn’t even get a “Larsson” for Duchene. He could get all the wingers and picks he wanted, and one toss in second round D man who might have some potential at some point…but not a single team would give Sakic a top 4 young D man a “first line” center.

You want a top 4 D it takes one of the best wingers in the game to get it. Proof is in the trade history. Not what fans think is “equal” value in terms of talent.

No no no. For already forgot Jones for Johansen? The problem with giving u pa young Top 4 D for Duchene is that Duchene only has 2 years before UFA. Good chance Dorion may lose Duchene to UFA or overpay to retain. Whereas a young D is cost-controlled until RFA expires.

At the time of that trade Jones had some serious issues with defending. Sure he was a top D prospect but hardly proven. Was he even in Nashville’s top 4 at the time? Johansen was also probably considered better than Duchene at that point. And younger.

But even if I give you that trade, do you have any other examples? Cause I can (and already have in other threads) show you far more examples of D costing way more than what it appears in a “talent for talent” sense.

The big complaint a couple of years ago, particularly from the media, was the Canucks were not tough enough and they were being manhandled by teams like LA, Anaheim and San Jose. Management appeared to agree and they acquired Gudbranson. He’s big, tough, and keeps the opposing players away from the front of the net. Analytics aside, he could probably be reasonably effective in the type of system that Desjardins had in play. However, the Canucks have changed their style of play (for the better in my opinion) and they need mobile D-Men who make good passes and have some offensive upside. Gudbranson is none of those and the best thing for both parties is to let him move on to a team whose system better suits his style of play.

Losing Tryamkin makes it difficult to ship out D unfortunately. I think the Canucks need to move on from Tanev, Edler, and if they can get a good return for Guddy, him too. This years draft is D heavy and the Canucks have Juolevi ready to make the next step

I think the Canucks should aim to be competitive in 2019-220. It would be nice if everything goes right or they win the next Mcdavid or Mathews in the lottery but realistically, they need to be patient and rebuild properly

If not Guddy, we still need someone to back up the team, stop other teams from getting to chippy or at least knowing that changing the tone of the game to an injury fest means they will hurt as much. Dorsett is great for that, but every team needs a big bad wolf. The Pens were smart to get Reaves, and now other teams employing a game plan of running their stars with cheap shots, etc. are going to high a high cost. This team is better and faster, but a little balance still is needed.

I think it proves that fancy stats aren’t everything. The proof is that Dale Tallon and Florida wanted him back last summer. Other teams are reportedly interested in him too. The proof is that he plays every game and if he were our worst Dman, then when Edler comes back you’d see him sit – you wont. You’ll see the fancy stat darlings Biega or Poulliott sit. I’m pretty sure the scouts, Benning and Green know more than the media or fans. You wrote, “A sunk cost is something that has already been paid for, and the payment for which cannot be recuperated.” The part your missing is “cannot be recuperated”. So I wouldnt quite define him that way, because of the value he maintains as illustrated above.

It’s a good article in the sense that you’re asking fans not to whine about the stiff price we were fleeced of from FLA, and that deal is done. But the argument he is a replacement player with little to no value doesn’t pass the sniff test even with fancy stats. I would be okay with the canucks resigning him or trading him and the market will decide what that value is.

Hey Jeremy can you provide data on the amount of dangerous shots that teams get against gubrandson, I know you are giving us data on corsi but what about the type of shots Malkin and better players get, I have a feeling that the data may be more positive as gubrandson clears the front of the net and takes the body, angles out forwards from getting the better shots, sure he gets walked in rushes sometimes but I think we knew that would be the case last year. He’s a warrior in front and behind the net and that’s what we need. He’s not the best but I don’t think he deserves quite the level of criticism he’s receiving.

Ok, not a Guddy fan, thought the trade stunk from Day 1, but this is the 2nd ‘trade Gudbranson’ article today on CA & this is not uncommon. We get the point, in fact, most of us agree, so can we talk about something else for a change, please?

Judging from the comments, I would say most people don’t agree. Also, the major point of this particular article was that you’re better off losing him instead of trying to make-up for a bad trade by not losing him.

Issue I have with that is even if Benning followed Jeremy’s advice here (highly doubtful) CA would harp on endlessly about how they traded McCann for a player who they let walk for nothing. This is called sucking and blowing at the same time.

The name for this suspect type of journalism is Colour of the Cars (COC) writing. It was so named when Brian Burke removed Tony Gallagher from travelling on the Canuck’s charter and said that even if the Canucks won the Stanley Cup Gallagher would complain about the colour of the cars in the victory parade. Botchford abjectly worships Gallagher and thus he writes noting but COC material. The CA variety of COC writing is use whatever numbers they chose to support a too frequent negative outlook on everything Canuck. Analytics in sports grow from baseball and one of the most respected commentators in that sport was Vin Scully. Scully quoted Mark Twain when he said that most commentators in baseball used statistics the same way a drunk uses a lamp post – more for support than for illumination. I give Davis full credit for actually replying to comments. He is holding fast to his own lamp post but at least he actually writes under his own name and he actually engaged with those who responded to his COC (stats variety) article. I challenge JD Burke, Graphic Comments or Cat Silverman to follow Davis’s example.